Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 502 posts

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#181

Post by NullPrefix »

ehmmmmmmmm wrote: post #160
adoxyz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm > Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.

Again, the law doesn't precede science, and doesn't change the fact that it's going to be life-threatening. You can quote the law all you want, but if you're blind and someone with PTSD is driving (and because they don't have much of a choice job-wise) you're going to be in grave danger. If you don't want to be in grave danger, speak out against this law. End of story.

>because they don't have much of a choice job-wise

That is not an excuse to put other people in grave danger

>End of story.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#182

Post by lotsofpulp »

tmpz22 wrote: post #47
bgorman wrote: post #15

I think anyone who has taken Uber and Lyft a lot knows that they allow drivers to abuse the system for their benefit, with no recourse for riders. A few incidents that have bothered me: 1. Having an Uber refuse to take me to the airport from downtown Chicago 2. Lyft not giving me an automatic refund for a pickup in SOMA when the driver had been heading down 101 for 10 minutes and was showing no signs of turning aroun…

I was a victim of "vomit fraud" where the driver sends in fake photos from an identical model vehicle of interior damage and pockets the money. I now take photos of the interior of the car before and after. Uber charged me for the "damage" same-day and reversed the charges two days later after I sent them article after article on the issue and pointed out it was a Sunday noon drive not a late night Friday escapade. W…

Sometimes, it sounds like we should all have a 24/7 GoPro cameras attached and running all the time.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#183

Post by core-questions »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #169
lupire wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ADA applies to workers too. A dog allergy is a disability.

How does this change anything? If someone has a problem with dogs, or anything else, then they are not qualified to perform a job that requires interacting with dogs, or whatever their particular disability involves. They aren't being denied a right to work out of discrimination or prejudice. They simply can't do that job. Here's the difference between that and prejudicial discrimination: If someone does have either…

> Don't take a job serving the public if you only like some people and not others.

Seems like this logic doesn't apply to payment processors, web hosts, and anyone else who doesn't want to deal with free speech that they find offensive. Bake the cake, right?

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#184

Post by CPLX »

kube-system wrote: post #172
jedberg wrote: post #50

The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app. As someone who takes rideshare with a small child who needs a car seat, I've had similar issues. A person with a dog will need extra time getting in and out, and the driver will need extra time to clean the car and remove any dog hair or other stains or spots. A person with a carseat like myself needs extra time to get into and out of the car wh…

I don't think Uber/Lyft wants to take the responsibility of ADA compliance, because that is implying that their drivers are employees.

Right. And I don’t want to continue to engage in the ludicrous bad faith argument that I’m not hiring Uber when I used the app to hire an Uber.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#185

Post by [deleted] »

valuearb wrote: post #120
jedberg wrote: post #50

The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app. As someone who takes rideshare with a small child who needs a car seat, I've had similar issues. A person with a dog will need extra time getting in and out, and the driver will need extra time to clean the car and remove any dog hair or other stains or spots. A person with a carseat like myself needs extra time to get into and out of the car wh…

It's not the service animals that are the problem, is the "emotional support" animals, or more specifically, their owners.

[deleted]

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#186

Post by kaylynb »

valuearb wrote: post #120
jedberg wrote: post #50

The real problem here is Uber/Lyft not accounting for this in their app. As someone who takes rideshare with a small child who needs a car seat, I've had similar issues. A person with a dog will need extra time getting in and out, and the driver will need extra time to clean the car and remove any dog hair or other stains or spots. A person with a carseat like myself needs extra time to get into and out of the car wh…

It's not the service animals that are the problem, is the "emotional support" animals, or more specifically, their owners.

How do you tell if a dog is a service dog though? The ADA already allows excluding misbehaving service animals, which should cover a good portion of 'fraudulent emotional service animals' considering how well most people mistrain their animals.

There are legitimate service animals for a wide variety of real conditions that a lay person could not be expected to consider. Dogs that can detect incoming seizures or problematic psychological states, and they could look very similar to an 'emotional support animal' but actually be a legitimate service animal.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#187

Post by lotsofpulp »

fastball wrote: post #97
shuntress wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drivers represent the company and all interactions with the driver are setup through the company. So, yes. ie: If a driver snatches my backpack and drives away, I expect Uber to replace/return what was stolen from me by their contractor. Not for them to just tell me to take a hike and deal with it myself.

So there is absolutely nothing a company can do to absolve themselves of the poor behavior of employees? By that system, Uber would still be at fault if they explicitly told all drivers "you are not allowed to deny service to someone with a service dog under any circumstances", and a driver did anyway.

Not really. The only thing a company can do is let their commercial liability insurance bear the costs. That's why it's such a big deal to document, document, document and force all employees to undergo certain training repeatedly throughout the year.

That way the business can show the insurance companies that they did all they could to prevent the employee from the error so that the insurer is liable for the expenses.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#188

Post by sorokod »

fractionalhare wrote: post #170
snapetom wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Op is saying implementing that is a minor inconvenience for Uber. If they wanted you to be able to tell the driver, it would take them a couple of weeks.

I don't think any large tech company is capable of shipping a feature that quickly. Even for a feature as narrowly scoped as this, going from ideation to deployment in a few weeks seems completely unrealistic. There's just way too much involved aside from raw lines of code.

Uber app has been around for a while, blind people too.

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#189

Post by m11a »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #62

It was downvoted below, but reposting here because this is something that I think should be seen as it comes up often: >> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." > Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely…

> I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic.

I can only speak for myself, but I used to be scared of most dogs except guide dogs. Guide dogs always seemed to have a calming effect on me (for some reason).

Re: Uber ordered to pay $1.1M to blind woman refused rides

#190

Post by Miner49er »

fuzzer37 wrote: post #180
Miner49er wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Allergy could be handled by Uber, who should be provided by the driver with a medical certification of the allergy and shouldn't even show that car to the blind customer. IANAL, but I don't think it is that simple. Small towns sometimes only have one driver at a time. If there's one driver, they _have_ to take a service animal, by law. Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough. Admittedly the liability for the dri…

> Allergy or fear of dogs is not good enough. I'm interested in this part. This seems to be counterintuitive. Is a waiter with a really bad peanut allergy required to serve a guest a dish with peanuts in it? Why does the clients (legitimate) health concerns override the drivers (also legitimate) health issues?

Well, I think the ADA only applies to businesses with more then 15 employees. The idea is that if you have a business that large, even if one person has a problem with dogs, not all 15 (or more) will, so you should be able to accommodate and provide service.

So in your example, the business should have a different waiter/waitress provide service.

Post reply on HN